Hillary Clinton had a tense exchange with an NPR host in an interview airing Thursday over whether she made “a calculus” against publicly supporting gay marriage before endorsing it last year.

It’s the first time Clinton, a potential candidate for president in 2016, has been extensively questioned about her support for gay marriage. She did not back it in her 2008 presidential campaign but she issued support for it by video in 2013, weeks after leaving the State Department.
Her support came after President Barack Obama, shoved toward it publicly by Vice President Joe Biden, backed gay marriage in the middle of the 2012 presidential race.

NPR’s Terry Gross was interviewing Clinton about her newly released memoir, “Hard Choices.” She repeatedly asked the former secretary of state whether her opinion on gay marriage had changed, or whether the political dynamics had shifted enough that she could express her opinion.

“I have to say, I think you are being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue,” Clinton said.

“I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand …” Gross said.

“No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify,” Clinton snapped back. “I think you’re trying to say I used to be opposed and now I’m in favor and I did it for political reasons, and that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record, I have a great commitment to this issue, and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress we’re making.”

(…)

“I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage, and I don’t think you probably did, either,” Clinton said to Gross. “This was an incredibly new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay rights movement began to talk about and slowly, but surely, convinced others of the rightness of that position. And when I was ready to say what I said, I said it.”

Clinton was lauded at the State Department for focusing on LGBT issues related to agency personnel and also in other countries. But she formally stated her support for gay marriage only after a number of prominent Democrats, such as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, and even some Republicans, such as Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, had already done so.

Her allies have attributed her timing to the need for her to stay apolitical while at the State Department

“You know, somebody is always first, Terry,” Clinton said. “Somebody is always out front, and thank goodness they are. But that doesn’t mean that those who join later, in being publicly supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change, are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across our country if nobody changed their mind, and thank goodness so many of us have.”
She further argued that “too many people believe they have a direct line to the Divine, and they never want to change their mind about anything, they’re never open to new information, and they like to operate in an evidence-free zone. … And I think it’s good if people continue to change.”
Gross noted that in the 1990s — when Clinton’s husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which let states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages permitted by other states and also prevented federal recognition of such unions — there already were supporters of gay marriage.

“To be fair Terry, not that many,” Clinton replied. “Were there activists who were ahead of their time, well that was true in every human rights and civil rights movement, but the vast majority of Americans were just waking up to this issue, and beginning to think about it, and grasp it for the first time, and think about their neighbor down the street who deserved to have the same rights as they did, or their son, or their daughter.”

There have been a lot of politicians on the left who seem to have come to a very fast revelation on the issue of marriage equality that roughly coincided with President Obama’s own announcement, prompted largely by Vice-President’s Biden’s comments on Meet the Press a week earlier, that he supported marriage equality. Within a very short period of time, every Democratic member of the Senate, and even a few Republicans, had announced that they supported marriage equality. In fact, I think it’s fair to say that support for marriage equality is a required position for any Democratic politician at any level. On some level, then, it’s fair to wonder whether a politician like Clinton who now says they support marriage equality is doing so because they actually believe in it in some abstract philosophical sense, or because they need to take that position to be politically viable. This would seem to be especially true given the fact that just six years ago politicians such as Clinton, Obama, and Biden were all saying that while they supported civil unions and equal rights for gay couples, they believed that marriage was an institution that should be limited to one man and one woman.

Conor Friedersdorf seems to think that Clinton should be more honest about what motivated her change in position:

In a primary, Clinton could be forced to explain a longtime position that a significant part of that Democratic political coalition now views as suspect or even bigoted. Most famously, the Silicon Valley left forced the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for a 2008 donation he made to an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. That same year, Clinton ran for president while openly opposing gay marriage. If she is to be believed, she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position. Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year?

Doing so would seem to show inconsistency, yet there’s a strong argument to be made that Clinton’s anti-gay-marriage past shouldn’t drive decisions to support or oppose her. No one doubts that she will be a strong supporter of gay equality if elected president, now that all the political incentives to take that position are aligned. She has advanced gay rights other than marriage at times in her long career. And she has never come across in speeches or interviews like an anti-gay bigot. There is, however, a vocal segment of the left that is invested in likening people who opposed gay marriage to racists who opposed interracial marriage. There is also resentment from gays who feel that the Clintons wronged them in the past.

Unlike Obama, she was personally deeply uncomfortable with this for a long time and politically believed the issue was a Republican wedge issue to torment the Clintons rather than a core civil rights cause. I was editor of TNR for five years of the Clintons, aggressively writing and publishing articles in favor of marriage equality and military service, and saw the Clintons’ irritation with and hostility to gay activists up close. Under my editorship, we were a very early 1991 backer of Clinton – so I sure didn’t start out prejudiced against them. They taught me that skepticism all by themselves, and mainly by lying all the time.So when did she evolve? Maybe in the middle 2000s. Was political calculation as big an influence as genuine personal wrestling? She’s a Clinton. They poll-tested where to go on vacation. Of course it was. But she’s also a human being and probably came around personally as well. She’s not a robot, after all. But I think of her position as the same as the eponymous gay rights organization the Clintons controlled in the 1990s, the Human Rights Campaign. As long as marriage equality hurt the Democrats, they were against it. Now it may even hurt Republicans, they’re for it. So Hillary is for it now. We’ve just got to hope the polling stays strong.

Friedersdof and Sullivan both make good points, and I suppose there is something to be said about the political cyncism that is likely involved in the decision of Clinton and many other Democrats to change their minds so quickly. On some level ,though, I think the question of when or why a politician, or any person for that matter, changed their mind on same-sex marriage is really quite irrelevant. This is an issue on which we have seen public opinion change dramatically over the course of a very short period of time. Less than twenty years ago, when a court case in Hawaii set this issue in motion and led, at first, to the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, public opinion polls showed that the vast majority of the American people opposed the idea of extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians. In 1996, for example, a Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 27% supported it. Now, we are at the point where same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, an area occupied by more than 50% of the American population and polling shows that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. When the public debate on this issue began, it seemed inconceivable that we would be at such a point in such a short period of time and, now, the day when gays and lesbians will be able to live together as married couples is not only in sight, but is likely far closer than people thought it would be just a few years ago.

None of that would have happened if people had not changed their mind on the issue of marriage equality. At some point, nearly everyone who now supports marriage equality was opposed to it in some sense or the other. Do we demonize them for being wrong in the past, or do we congratulate them for coming around to accepting the idea of equality now? And does it really matter why someone changed their mind? I’d submit that the answer to both questions is obvious. When it comes to an issue like this, obsessing over what someone believed or stated publicly in the past accomplishes nothing, and arguably discourages others from publicly stating that they too have changed their mind. For example, when Republicans like Rob Portman state their public support for marriage equality, what value is served by attacking him for not supporting it publicly in the past? He supports it now, and that’s all that matters. There is, I suppose, some legitimate criticism to be had if they are changing their minds for political reasons, but given the fact that many Americans have changed their mind on this issue for one reason or another it strikes me as pointless to obsess over minutiae like that. The important thing is that people are supporting marriage equality in increasing numbers, why they changed their mind or what they may have believed at some point in the past is irrelevant. So, instead of haranguing Hillary Clinton or any other politician and trying to imply that they changed their position on marriage equality for political reasons, we ought to just be happy that they have changed their mind.

Here’s the audio of the NPR interview, you can decide for yourself if Clinton was being “testy”:

About Doug MataconisDoug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway.
Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

At some point, nearly everyone who now supports marriage equality was opposed to it in some sense or the other. Do we demonize them for being wrong in the past, or do we congratulate them for coming around to accepting the idea of equality now?

Thank you.

Human rights advance sometimes in slow steps, and sometimes in huge discontinuous leaps. There was a time when almost no whites thought that blacks could ever be treated as anything but slaves. There was a time when the idea of women owning property was absurd. There was a time when the idea of women voting was absurd. There was a time when the idea of Jews having equal rights under the law was absurd.

When an idea of equality goes from being absurd to being the norm in just a couple of generations, we should not stint in praising those many individuals who, miraculously, actually changed their minds, and made it happen (or at least let it happen). They are the courageous ones, the world-changers.

Is Hillary Clinton cynically riding this wave, despite her own anti-gay feelings? I couldn’t care less, as long as she doesn’t fight it. “Never changing your mind, regardless of the evidence” is a Republican value we can do without.

As an aside, Terry Gross was the same interviewer who conservatives accused of doing “hit” interviews with Bill O’Reilly and Monica Lewinski. Here’s a bit of evidence that maybe, just maybe, Gross does her best to probe uncomfortable subjects with *most*, if not *all*, of her guests.

This is the Clintons. They probably take polls on what they should have as breakfast in the morning….

I’ve never liked Hillary that much, considering her one of those triangulation types who would gladly talk out of both sides of her mouth at the same time if she were in front of an undecided audience. I do, however, credit both her and Bill with quite a lot of political smarts and weaselly self-interest that will keep her firing her guns in the correct direction once she figures out which side of the bread is buttered (to totally mangle metaphors.)

I’m reminded of a comment made by Lyndon B. Johnson: “Hell, it’s better to have him in the tent pissing out rather that outside the tent pissing in.” So welcome aboard, Hillary!

Not an unfair point, and I don’t really fault Gross for asking the questions. They are, after all inevitable in some sense in no small part because it was Clinton’s husband who signed the Defense Of Marriage Act into law.

I’ve long given up on criticizing Republicans for only changing their minds on issues when it personally affects them. If Rob Portman’s son being gay was the only way to make him consider the life of a gay person, then so be it. Is being concerned about something only because it personally affects you that much better a reason than being concerned because it helps you politically? Probably not. I completely agree with Grumpy that Hillary’s position’s been polled and tested to death but as long as she’s not against us, I’m glad to have her for us.

Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year?

There is no such subset of Democrats who believe that 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man becoming CEO in 2013. There was, however, a board of directors of a company who thought that having a CEO who had donated money to prevent gay people from getting married would hurt that company with its gay and gay-alllied customer base and decided as a free -market business decision that that man should not be CEO.

If Rob Portman’s son being gay was the only way to make him consider the life of a gay person, then so be it.

As I joked at that time, if only Portman had another son who was a laid-off disabled black woman with no health insurance who was prevented from voting, we might have gotten his vote on those issues as well….

NPR’s Terry Gross was interviewing Clinton about her newly released memoir, “Hard Choices.” She repeatedly asked the former secretary of state whether her opinion on gay marriage had changed, or whether the political dynamics had shifted enough that she could express her opinion.

“I have to say, I think you are being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue,” Clinton said.

“I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand …” Gross said.

I listened to that on the way home, drive time radio.
As we all know, if Terry Gross does not ask the question then she would be widely criticized by the Right for being a toady to liberal politicians, and we’d probably get another round of “rescind taxpayer funding of NPR” from conservative interests.

The problem with the Sullivan-Friedersdorf position is that it presumes politicians are, first and foremost, public intellectuals like themselves. It’s just not the case. It’s perfectly reasonable for someone seeking elective office in a representative democracy to say, “You know what? The people have changed their minds on this issue and the law should change accordingly.” For someone left of center like Clinton, it would be fair to add, “I’ve personally supported gay marriage for quite some time. But the people didn’t support it even as recently as the 2008 campaign and I didn’t see trying to change their minds as a top priority at that time, what with the country mired in two overseas wars and facing global financial meltdown.”

Doug: Not an unfair point, and I don’t really fault Gross for asking the questions.

al: Gross had to ask the question.

The point is one of fault (and Doug, I don’t think you were trying to make it that) or “had”/”had not.”

The point is that Gross is a *good interviewer* who is interested in a substantive interview, not an “easy” interview. And that difficult questions, including follow-ups, are part of interviewing and not necessarily a sign of hostility.

The problem is that there are *not enough* interviewers like Gross — especially on the Sunday Shows.

(That said, Gross isn’t perfect by any means and there are certain cases — especially with musicians — where she can get really starstruck. But everyone had their blindspots.)

@C. Clavin: I think people forget that she wasn’t an especially good politician back in 2008. Someone somewhere said that most people like the idea of Hillary more than they like the reality of HIllary. I thought that was right on target.

@James Joyner: Yes, well, that WOULD have been a good answer, wouldn’t it?

Too bad she didn’t say it…..(see “Triangulation”, above.)

I don’t mind politicians making the argument that they are simply representing the Will of the People and thus when it is obvious that the common consensus of the people they represent has changed, that their own stance has changed. What I do detest are politicians who want to keep their representatives from knowing their own stance by waffling every time they open their mouths.

Pretty much everyone had to evolve. The stigma of the gay label was something everyone had to avoid, even in sympathy, or risk job, property, and life itself if we go back far enough (and we do not have to go back very far). So there has been a sort of “coming out” process as people learn their prejudices were making those around them terribly unhappy.

To reverse oneself after centuries of indoctrination is a cause for celebration no matter when it happens. Sec. Clinton is a politician and should be treated as such. She is going to absolutely control the timing of that, and any other “event.”

Sullivan is running on Old Memes now. The new ones include marriage equality nationwide, so he would be more accurate to unfurl the Mission Accomplished banner than natter over who came out when and why.

“The point is that Gross is a *good interviewer* who is interested in a substantive interview, not an “easy” interview. And that difficult questions, including follow-ups, are part of interviewing and not necessarily a sign of hostility.

The problem is that there are *not enough* interviewers like Gross — especially on the Sunday Shows.”

This. I typically change stations or switch to a CD whenever Morning Edition or All Things Considered does a cultural piece, as I know it’s going to be a puff piece.

On the other hand, Terry Gross has the luxury of having guests on for 20-50 minutes at a time, and can push back until she gets an answer.

I was out-ni99ered by John Patterson. And I’ll tell you here and now, I will never be out-ni99ered again.
To Seymore Trammell (1958), quoted in George Wallace: Settin’ the Woods on Fire

In 1979, Wallace said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: “I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over.”

Was this a miraculous change of mind the result of supernatural intervention? Somehow I don’t think so.
If George really meant it, good on him.
It was one of the more remakable political 180’s in my lifetime.

@Moosebreath:
Quick OT vent on NPR. Renee Montagne is a *terrible* news interviewer. This morning she interviewed Vali Nasr, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, who has been really critical that the US left Iraq too early.

And not once in the interview did she push him on what we should have done given the Status of Forces Agreement and the fact that the Iraqis wanted us out.

The problem is not so much that various people who changed their minds on the issue, so much as people who want to jump in front of the parade and pretend they’re the drum major. It’s the same issue we saw in the complaints about “Forcing the Spring”. People who only showed up when it was safe to be for marriage equality are now trying to rewrite history to make themselves the heroes, while ignoring the people who did the actual heavy lifting by showing up when it was controversial and getting people to change their minds.

A far worse example is Joe Biden. The guy who actually voted for DOMA is now trying to pass himself off as a big civil rights hero because he came out in favor of same sex marriage in May 2012 (literally right after polling finally showed a majority of Americans in favor for the first time). Even more infuriatingly, he’s trying to recast DOMA itself as somehow being pro-gay rights because it wasn’t as draconian as it could have been.

Well, when people who are presently opposed to equal rights for gays are frequently demonized and painted as bigots (clearly true in some cases, but not necessarily in all), it seems fair to ask whether the likes of Clinton, Obama, and most prominent Democrats were also bigots as recently as a few years ago.

I support marriage equality and have for some time, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard given how rapidly public opinion has shifted on this issue.

The problem is that there are *not enough* interviewers like Gross — especially on the Sunday Shows.

I am now convinced that the “NASCAR Effect” governs the Sunday morning talkies.

That is, a majority people now watch to see the spin outs and crashes into the wall. Not many people would say so directly, however it seems to me that most Q & A on those shows is predictably partisan or disingenuous to the point of “why bother?” The only reason to watch is to see if one of the guests has a meltdown or goes off-topic and gives honest opinions on ANY subject.

I am now convinced that the “NASCAR Effect” governs the Sunday morning talkies. That is, a majority people now watch to see the spin outs and crashes into the wall. Not many people would say so directly, however it seems to me that most Q & A on those shows is predictably partisan or disingenuous to the point of “why bother?”

I guess. But when was the last time you can remember a host actually doing any “bumping” (to borrow a NACARism) to try and case a crash.

Seriously, the guests continue to be treated with kit gloves on those programs.

@Jim R:..there does seem to be a bit of a double standard given how rapidly public opinion has shifted on this issue.

USCon ratified by New Hampshire June 21, 1788: Minimum requirement for ratification met.
19th Amendment ratified Aug.19, 1920. After 132 years women get the right to vote.
So how long should it take for public opinion to shift on the gay marrige issue to suit you?

Seriously, the guests continue to be treated with kit gloves on those programs.

I can’t disagree, Matt.

I watch some of those shows because … well, I always have. However, they often make me cringe because they often are so content-free. The moderators let these guys come on and recite predictable talking points, and they never refute obvious deceptions.

When I heard that clip my first thought (like beth’s) was that it sounded like the worse of Bill’s circumnavigations around the simple truth. I voted for him and supported him and will do the same for her because of the alternative. But it’s hard to like someone so defensive and prone to obfuscate any answer they don’t like having to give.

I was making this same point on Facebook to a fan the other day. Politics isn’t about purity of heart it’s about numbers. As long as someone is pulling on your end of the rope, who gives a damn what’s in their heart?

There is, I suppose, some legitimate criticism to be had if they are changing their minds for political reasons,

LOL. It’s the Clintons. They contemplate when to inhale and exhale for political reasons. The whole episode just reinforces the shadiness that inhabits both the Clintons’ characters. They will say, do and think anything if it gets them personally ahead.

I don’t think a single person here spoke against gay marriage, so I’ll a different point of view.

“At stake in the rationalization of homosexual behavior is the notion that human beings are ordered to a purpose that is given by Nature. The understanding that things have an in-built purpose is being replaced by the idea that everything is subject to man’s will and power, which is considered to be without limits. This is what the debate over homosexuality is really about — the Nature of reality itself.”

Cover flap of Making Gay Okay by Robert R. Reilly.

If we all stick together and say it is so, then it will be so. It will no longer be a lie. We will have changed reality itself.

But you really cannot change reality, but you can fool yourself for a long time. We fooled ourselves that one person could be another person’s property. We fooled ourselves that a black could not marry a white person. We fooled ourselves that a woman’s mind was not suited for politics and thus for voting. They were all lies from the beginning. Now with homosexual marriage, we are buying into another lie. At some point we will either revert to the truth, or the lie will destroy us. Of course, it may take a while.

If only Hillary’s critics were correct but they are not. Hillary changed the policy at the Dept. State, to help provide benefits for same sex partners of those work were in foreign service. It was after this that Obama followed with other federal agencies. She openly supported same sex partners at State beginning in 2009.

The Clintons should get some credit for kicking off the movement toward gay rights by pushing for the end of discrimination against gays in the military back in 1993. People forget that the Clintons were pushing for gay rights when Barack Obama was starting out in politics.
The Clinton’s push failed and there was some triangulation. But even way back when, at a time when it definitely wasn’t cool, the Clintons blazed a trial.

The idea that we must live according to our innate purpose is slightly insane. We evolved to wander the savannah eating carrion and bugs. Been doing that lately? Yeah, me neither.

All of civilization is man redefining man, creating a new environment and a new way to live in it. Homo sapiens did not suddenly appear 100 years ago ready to operate machines and live in boxes. Everything that’s happened from the first time Gorg said to Grug, “Hmm, I think I’ll just keep this fire going and use it to cook my mastodon meat,” has been divergance from our initial path.

But you really cannot change reality, but you can fool yourself for a long time. We fooled ourselves that one person could be another person’s property. We fooled ourselves that a black could not marry a white person. We fooled ourselves that a woman’s mind was not suited for politics and thus for voting. They were all lies from the beginning. Now with homosexual marriage, we are buying into another lie. At some point we will either revert to the truth, or the lie will destroy us. Of course, it may take a while.

Considering that, less than 24 hours ago, you wrote that feminism = lesbianism and that you see nothing wrong with the way that Rush Limbaugh uses Femi-nazi, I suspect that it’s going to go over your head that if you were alive then, you’d be most likely defending slavery, segregation, miscegenation, and laws that prevented women from voting.

Historically, each of these were seen as “conservative” values critical to prevent the downfall of society.

Or better yet, instead of constantly calling homosexuality “unnatural” (despite the scads of evidence that suggests it’s a regular and naturally occurring phenomena across all animal species) — perhaps you could actually mount an argument as to why gay marriage is so dangerous to societal cohesion.

I voted for him and supported him and will do the same for her because of the alternative. But it’s hard to like someone so defensive and prone to obfuscate any answer they don’t like having to give.

There is a reason Obama beat Hillary in the primaries, and while positions on Iraq may have been the big factor, I think the Democratic base could have “forgiven” her if not for this added characteristic of the Clintons.

I’m not certain what bothers me about her more: that I know (or presume) she was invested in political calculi to guide when to make an announcement of support for gay marriage, or that she couldn’t think to use the @James Joyner response. That would have been perfectly acceptable.

I stand by that. I was talking about the intellectual limitations of conservatives. Their failure of imagination and empathy. I retract not a word of that scorn. I keep hoping that conservatives will recognize that they have a habit of being wrong about the humanity of people different from themselves.

I also sneered openly at Mr. Obama’s sudden discovery that the polls favored him evolving. And I feel the same way about Hillary.

But once the jabs are landed and the told-you-so’s voiced, and the eyes rolled, I think the end state is to say, welcome the team, welcome to the right side, have a beer.

I don’t think a single person here spoke against gay marriage, so I’ll a different point of view.

The point of view you offer is not about marriage, which is a human invention, not a natural phenomenon. Your point of view is that homosexual behavior is unnatural, which is utterly wrong. Homosexual behavior is pretty common throughout the natural world.

Also, those of us who understand the natural world through examination via the scientific method will not be lectured about it by people who believe in miracles, ghosts, demons, virgin births, talking bushes, sky gods, or other such supernatural nonsense. You just aren’t equipped with the faculties needed to take you seriously.

Mr. WYTHE from the Committee for preparing rules made a report which employed the deliberations of this day.

Mr. KING objected to one of the rules in the Report authorising any member to call for the yeas & nays and have them entered on the minutes. He urged that as the acts of the Convention were not to bind the Constituents, it was unnecessary to exhibit this evidence of the votes; and improper as changes of opinion would be frequent in the course of the business & would fill the minutes with contradictions.

Col. MASON seconded the objection; adding that such a record of the opinions of members would be an obstacle to a change of them on conviction; and in case of its being hereafter promulged must furnish handles to the adversaries of the Result of the Meeting. The proposed rule was rejected nem. contradicente.

@ernieyeball: No, Jim R. is right. To go from where we were just 25 years ago to the present status is an amazingly rapid change from a social viewpoint.

(Whoever it was that just wrote the NYC bestseller on habits actually traces the beginning of the change to a very minor shove: the re-classification in the Library of Congress of homosexuality from being included under “Deviant Sexuality” to a new classification all on its own. It’s a fascinating story.)

@grumpy realist: To go from where we were just 25 years ago to the present status is an amazingly rapid change from a social viewpoint.

If I were an enslaved black man waiting for emancipation in 1863 or a woman waiting to vote in 1920 or a gay person waiting to marry my sweetie in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia or one of the other 23 states that bans same sex marriage by law or constitution or both today, these changes could not come fast enough.

@grumpy realist: writes, “How do you know that we’re buying into the lie NOW and it’s not the case that we were buying into the lie THEN? ”

Very good question. How do we know what is a lie and what is the truth? Some think that there is no such thing as truth. It is all a matter of perception. But if you don’t believe that, you examine the evidence and apply reason to make sense of it.

Given the male sex organs we are asked to consider whether there is a purpose for having them. I would say that there is. About 98 percent of males figured out what they are for. About 2 percent figured out an alternate use, and about half of the people are ok with that.

I doubt that in this group I could even get agreement that there is a purpose for sex organs.

@michael reynolds: You really don’t say much. We humans ate. Ok, I buy that. We humans learn and reason, and therefore can learn. Ok, I buy that too. As to whether we were ready to operate machines and live in boxes, I would say we were, unless you can tell me what physical feature we have now that we did not have then.
I dare say that there are aborigines in Borneo who a generation ago were eating humans and hunting heads, and who today are quite good with a Smartphone.

I dare say that there are aborigines in Borneo who a generation ago were eating humans and hunting heads, and who today are quite good with a Smartphone.

Then there is clearly hope that, given enough time and dealing with facts, Republicans and Conservatives will actually come to realize that “gay marriage” won’t destroy society (just as the end of Slavery, Segregation, Bans on Interracial Marriages, and giving women the vote didn’t end society either — despite many conservative’s fears at the time).

@Matt Bernius: This is silly. Why do I have to accept that every male-female sex act should result in pregnancy? And masturbation is often referred to as self-abuse. Why do I have to think that something cannot be abused?

@Matt Bernius: No one can really know the affects of gay marriage on society. It is not the only thing influencing society.

Society has made progress in some areas. We have abolished slavery. It was wrong when the constitution was drafted. The drafters knew slavery was wrong, that is why the word does not appear in it. Just as society can progress, it can also regress. Colleges used to be bastions of liberal ideas with free and open debate and discussion of all ideas. Now it is pretty much a closed system where only certain ways of thinking are tolerated.

I do not know how people will react when in the future their precious snowflakes come home in the 5th grade and say, “Mom and dad, guess what, I found out I’m gay.” Maybe it’s not going to happen, or maybe mom and dad will say, “That’s terrific, Johnny!” And, of course, grandma and grandpa will de delighted too.

Don’t much care about the red thumbs voted on my posts but at 15:07 today someone down voted my copy and paste of “Madison’s Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787″.
Do I really want to know why anyone would oppose this historical record of the drafting of our Great Charter?
All I can respond is Downvoter…You Bloated Sack of Protoplasm!!</strong
(Apologies to Ren and Stimpy.)

@Rafer Janders: Is that supposed to be a serious comment. How do parents react when little Johnny comes home and tells them he can see? A bit differently I imagine than when he comes home and tells them he is blind.

@Rafer Janders: Gay parents may be good parents, but that does not mean that the child will not suffer from the absence of a mother or father. There are children of gay parents who now grown up, write of hole in their heart by not knowing their father or mother. There is more to it than just whether parents are good or bad.

I do not really understand the concept of coming home and telling your parents you are straight. It means that someone has taught the children that there is something other than just being a child. Would a child tell their parents that they have two eyes. Many they were reading the fable of the Cyclops.

@Another Mike: you just don’t get it at all. Being gay is not a disease, it’s not an affliction, it’s not a choice, it’s part of who we are. The only argument against recognizing same sex marriage is rooted in religion, which is not a valid reason to deny a class of people equal protection under the law. How me being married harms you or society in any way has never been adequately explained beyond a book that you and almost every Christian violates regularly. So when you stop eating pork and shell fish and stop wearing clothes that mix fabrics, get back to me on how terrible this is.

@Another Mike: Gay parents may be good parents, but that does not mean that the child will not suffer from the absence of a mother or father.

Oh get over yourself. I know many people who were raised by single parents who are now adults.They are doing just fine. Some have told me that they were better off that an abusive parent was not in their life.
I have a friend whose mom was not around due to alcohol and drug abuse and her dad was killed in a hit and run several years ago. She has had a tougher row to hoe than a lot of folks. Despite that I know her as a hard worker who recently graduated from college and will be starting Grad School at Indiana University in August. She is also a decent human being who does not vilify those who do not share her sexual nature.
You might take a lesson from her. But I doubt it.

Given the male sex organs we are asked to consider whether there is a purpose for having them. I would say that there is. About 98 percent of males figured out what they are for. About 2 percent figured out an alternate use, and about half of the people are ok with that.

I doubt that in this group I could even get agreement that there is a purpose for sex organs.

First of all, 2 percent? Really?

Frankly, I’ll bet more than 99% of guys figured out at least 10 alternate uses before age 20.

Other than that, your logic is rock-solid. (Heh.)

Could you now also advise me on what I’m allowed to do with my male nipples?

@Matt Bernius:
She is one of the better interviewers of our time. She asks thoughtful probing questions and follows up on them, If only we had more like her.

The O’Reilly interview had me rolling and gave me my favorite BOR quote which I unfortunately cannot find right now. It was something to the effect of, “distorting people’s faces and mocking them, is that what you call satire?” Yes, Bill, yest it is.

@ernieyeball:
I was in middle school in Alabama when he was re-elected governor and was shocked at the time that so many African Americans voted for him after what he had done. Apparently he could charm the pants off of anyone in the same room with him.

But you really cannot change reality, but you can fool yourself for a long time. We fooled ourselves that one person could be another person’s property. We fooled ourselves that a black could not marry a white person. We fooled ourselves that a woman’s mind was not suited for politics and thus for voting. They were all lies from the beginning. Now with homosexual marriage, we are buying into another lie. At some point we will either revert to the truth, or the lie will destroy us. Of course, it may take a while.

@Grewgills: Apparently he could charm the pants off of anyone in the same room with him.

Yikes! What an image!
I remember him saying later in life something to the effect that when he was supporting segregation he was doing what the electorate wanted. And when he changed his tune he was reflecting a changing electorate.
I can not find the exact quote.

Now with homosexual marriage, we are buying into another lie. At some point we will either revert to the truth, or the lie will destroy us. Of course, it may take a while.

This person performs an excellent service with his comments…if the choice of a politician is between someone who thinks like he does and someone who has “evolved” on this issue, most people will choose the latter every time…

I do not know how people will react when in the future their precious snowflakes come home in the 5th grade and say, “Mom and dad, guess what, I found out I’m gay.” Maybe it’s not going to happen, or maybe mom and dad will say, “That’s terrific, Johnny!” And, of course, grandma and grandpa will de delighted too.

Oh, you poor fearful thing…such scenarios happen now when some young people realize that they are gay…perhaps you could do some research and see how people react now, unless, of course, that would offend your very tender sensibilities…

@Matt Bernius: Listen to the interview that Terry Gross did of Bill O’Reilly, where O’Reilly got in a snit and walked off. Then follow that with the interview that Terry Gross did with “Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog”, where Triumph parodies O’Reilly’s snit.

@Matt Bernius: i think they’re testing her early to see if she can stop making those absurd “big eyes” whenever she’s lying. diane sawyer did it to her this week too, didn’t work out too well.
@David in KC: um, maybe it’s not for you- what about deblasio’s wife? and nobody cares if you get “married” and such, it’s forcing gov’t. & businesses to recognize that for financial gain. it’s always about the money, at least admit it.

There are children of gay parents who now grown up, write of hole in their heart by not knowing their father or mother.

Luckily this doesn’t happen to children who were born to a married mother and father. None of those kids’ parents ever divorce and move out, none of those kids are ever neglected by their parents and grow up without a mother or a father…

@Rafer Janders: You are missing the point. It is about not even knowing the identity of your father or sometimes even your mother. For a homosexual couple to have a child there has to be a third person involved who is biologically related to the child.

@An Interested Party: However parents react there may be more opportunities to react in the future. Legalizing gay marriage made it into a good. Now a child has two options, marry someone of the same sex or marry someone of the opposite sex, and the two options are supposedly of equal good. Young people will be faced with making a choice between available sexual alternatives. Neither option is endorsed in theory, but homosexuality seems to be the one promoted.

Only time will tell how all this really turns out. I suspect that the percentage of gay people will steadily increase over time, proving that what you promote you get more of.

Now a child has two options, marry someone of the same sex or marry someone of the opposite sex, and the two options are supposedly of equal good. Young people will be faced with making a choice between available sexual alternatives. Neither option is endorsed in theory, but homosexuality seems to be the one promoted.

I call Poe. You cannot be a real person expressing your actual views, the only rational explanation is that you are a caricature. Congrats, you had me going for a while there.

@Another Mike: “We fooled ourselves that one person could be another person’s property. We fooled ourselves that a black could not marry a white person. We fooled ourselves that a woman’s mind was not suited for politics and thus for voting. They were all lies from the beginning. Now with homosexual marriage, we are buying into another lie. At some point we will either revert to the truth, or the lie will destroy us. Of course, it may take a while.”

Go fuck yourself.

You guys are the guys who declared that slavery was ‘God’s Will’.

You guys are the guys who declared that interracial marriage was against ‘God’s Will’.

You guys are the guys who declared that any status for women aside from subordination was against ‘God’s Will’.

We know the history – the ‘Christian Right’ was fighting and killing for slavery, and then for Jim Crow, and against women’s rights.

Now, you are the Birtherist liars, torturers and Mars-worshipping warmongers.

We have abolished slavery. It was wrong when the constitution was drafted. The drafters knew slavery was wrong, that is why the word does not appear in it.

This is a complete rewriting of history. Some of the drafters of the constitution believed slavery to be wrong. Many of the drafters, on the other hand, fully believed in the peculiar institution. That’s why they fought to have it enshrined within the Constitution. And the fact is most of the drafters didn’t care enough about slavery to force a resolution at the time.

I do not know how people will react when in the future their precious snowflakes come home in the 5th grade and say, “Mom and dad, guess what, I found out I’m gay.”

At the time that Miscegenation were struck down, I suspect that most parents would not have been happy to find out that their son or daughter was dating/marrying someone of another race. That was the entire point of “Guess whos coming to dinner.” And yet we struck those laws down.

Now a child has two options, marry someone of the same sex or marry someone of the opposite sex, and the two options are supposedly of equal good.

Even if this ridiculous premise was true (and, tell me, do you know any gay people? Seriously, I suggest asking them when they decided to “be gay”), you still have yet to articulate a single coherent point as to *why* gay marriage would be a bad thing for society.

I suspect that the percentage of gay people will steadily increase over time, proving that what you promote you get more of.

Alternate theory — perhaps more people will be openly gay because they are no longer threatened with stigma, discrimination, and physical abuse. One need only look through numerous memoirs to find accounts of people who were clearly gay, but *chose* to suppress it because of the associated social stigma and/or literal prosecution that came with being gay.

But this point still isn’t a defense of why not to implement marriage equality.

It is about not even knowing the identity of your father or sometimes even your mother. For a homosexual couple to have a child there has to be a third person involved who is biologically related to the child.

What’s your feeling on adoption? Or having children taken away from abusive parents. Clearly they’re all going to grow up with “holes” in their lives.

And yet we see all of these things as important social practices.

Better yet, what are your thoughts on fertility treatments where sperm or eggs from a third party are involved? Those are legal and being used by heterosexual couples to start families.

Why do I have to accept that every male-female sex act should result in pregnancy?

Because you are the one who wrote:

Given the male sex organs we are asked to consider whether there is a purpose for having them.

Clearly you think that their purpose is purely reproductive. Otherwise why wouldn’t gay sex fit the larger purpose of a sex organ (i.e. having sex)?

And while not every male/female sex act will result in pregnancy, contraception clearly is an attempt to subvert the function of those organs. Likewise, I would think you’d be all for reinstating sodomy laws since oral sex, male/female anal sex, and any other case where the male is not ejaculating into the female’s vagina is an unnatural act.

And further, if they are *purely reproductive* sex should stop once the reproductive phase of life passes.

Otherwise, it means that sex is more than *reproduction* and in that case, your argument starts to fall apart.

Seriously, its pretty clear that you really haven’t thought through the implications of your positions.

@Matt Bernius: I really do not understand what the argument is here. Sex organs are for the purpose of reproduction. That does not mean that every sex act will lead to pregnancy. I read that it takes nine tries on average for humans to achieve pregnancy. Of course, this information could be wrong.

There is no reason to think that the sex instinct would disappear and the sex act would cease when pregnancy becomes impossible. It is common knowledge that this is not so. Now if you were building a machine driven by a computer program, you might design it that way. We didn’t design ourselves though, so we are stuck with what we are.

You are missing the point. It is about not even knowing the identity of your father or sometimes even your mother. For a homosexual couple to have a child there has to be a third person involved who is biologically related to the child.

Friends of mine have a teenager who was born via artificial insemination (the father was infertile, so they used anonymous donor sperm). So for this straight couple to have a child there had to be a third person involved who was not biologically related to the child, and the child doesn’t know the identity of the biological “father.”

Does it matter? She has a real father who was present during the pregnancy, in the delivery room, and for every day of her life since. What exactly is she missing out on?

@Matt Bernius: At this time it is next to impossible to convince people that gay marriage is bad. It is too easy to bat down arguments, because it is something that people will have to experience and learn for themselves. For example, will the incidence of homosexuality increase, and more people have to forego grandchildren? Maybe homosexuality cannot be chosen, and maybe homosexuals will have children in the numbers that men and women marriages do. In theory a lot of things are possible, but what will really happen? There are just so many things that could happen and many things that maybe cannot be foreseen.

I believe at this point no one can even say conclusively what causes homosexuality much less what the affect will be of making homosexuality into a moral good. We have centuries of it not being recognized as a moral good. Were people then just bigoted, or did they really know something?

@bill: you were the one that said it was all about money. It’s not, you know it’s not, and your comment was at best disingenuous. This isn’t about any single thing, it’s a laundry list of rights and protections that cannot be duplicated outside of a state recognized marriage license. The question is whether or not you recognize that everyone has equal protection under the law or not.

@Another Mike: Now a child has two options, marry someone of the same sex or marry someone of the opposite sex, and the two options are supposedly of equal good.

Actually in most states you must reach the age of majority before you wed. To state “a child has two options” is factually incorrect.
An adult has more than those two options. Some folks never marry. I lived with a woman for 16 years and we never married. One of the reasons we shacked up all those years was to have a monogamous sexual relationship betwixt us. You know, sexual pleasure…Making love…Bedsports…Rolling in the hay…Screwing…Balling…Fornicating…Copulate…Get Laid…Get Lucky…Get it On…Get Some…Get Nasty…Get Down…Go Down…Score…Bang…Bone…Nail…See You in Hell!http://www.wineandbowties.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/groening1.jpeg

@Another Mike: “I do not know how people will react when in the future their precious snowflakes come home in the 5th grade and say, “Mom and dad, guess what, I found out I’m gay.” Maybe it’s not going to happen, or maybe mom and dad will say, “That’s terrific, Johnny!” And, of course, grandma and grandpa will de delighted too.”

What, instead of beating them half to death and throwing them out of the house to live or die on the streets as all good God-fearing folks would do?

Given how savagely anti-gay the mainstream Oklahoma Republican party is, it’s no surprise that the state’s Tea Partiers are so rabidly hateful that they come across more as dark satire than as serious bigots. To wit: This week, an Oklahoma magazine discovered that last summer, Tea Party state House candidate Scott Esk endorsed stoning gay people to death: “I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” he said in a Facebook post. Esk went on to add nuance to his position:
“That [stoning gay people to death] goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”

@Another Mike: Sex organs are for the purpose of reproduction pleasure and lust.

Guess you are going to get laws passed to outlaw rubbers. Good luck with that!

We didn’t design ourselves though, so we are stuck with what we are.

Wrong again. We have developed all kinds of techniques to improve on our “natural state”.
I suffered from cataracts several years ago. The natural lenses in both eyes, you know, the ones you want me to be “stuck with” were removed and replaced with synthetic lenses designed by humans.
I guess if your vision of reality (which you have stated we can not change) were accurate I would be blind by now. I sure am glad you just don’t know what you ware talking about.

@Another Mike: I realize that the truly productive commenters are the ones who use Rush Limbaugh’s phraseology — “precious snowflakes” my ass… and yes, I know you never listen to rush or watch Fox, just like every other Republican poster — but what alternative were you suggesting? Once you’ve essentially said it’s a bad thing for parents and grandparents to accept a gay child, what would you have them do? Institutionalize the kid?

@Another Mike: : No one here is talking about killing anyone. Maybe you should try Iran or some other Muslim country.

Tell that to these people: Howard Efland, Robert Hillsborough, Harvey Milk, Terry Knudsen, Robert Allen Taylor, Steven Charles, Charlie Howard, Rebecca Wight, James Zappalorti, Julio Rivera, Paul Broussard, Allen Schindler, Brandon Teena, Scott Amedure, Chanelle Pickett,..and the remaining 100 or so names on this list of those beaten and murdered in the United States of America because they did not practice your approved method of sexual behavior.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States
Please pay particular attention to this case:

January 28, 2005 – Ronnie Antonio Paris, a three-year-old boy living in Tampa, Florida, died due to brain injuries inflicted by his father, Ronnie Paris, Jr. According to his mother and other relatives, Ronnie Paris, Jr., repeatedly slammed his son into walls, slapped the child’s head, and “boxed” him because he was concerned the child was gay and would grow up a sissy. Paris was sentenced to thirty years in prison.

@ernieyeball:
Not to mention those folks, lets not forget that in “modern” western countries like the UK, even as late as the 1950’s homosexuals were given the choice of chemical castration or imprisonment. One need look no further than the tragic case of Alan Turing as a reminder of how the modern world has historically treated gay men and women.

Young people will be faced with making a choice between available sexual alternatives. Neither option is endorsed in theory, but homosexuality seems to be the one promoted.

Two points:

(1) Choice? It is apparent to me that homosexuality is being recognized as a legitimate human condition, not a psychological disorder. This change in our collective thinking probably dates back to ‘Stonewall’ and the early 1970s in the Castro District of San Francisco. It has momentum now, and it’s taken the better part of two generations to get to where we are today.

(2) How is homosexuality being “promoted”? I’ve never quite understood where conservatives are coming from on this. (a) Is it that conservatives actually believe that homosexuality is used to recruit people to change their sexuality? Or (b) is it that conservatives object to any effort that removes the stigma and disapproval of homosexuality? I find the use of “promote” in the case of homosexuality to be strange and to have overtones of paranoia.

@wr: I do not listen to talk radio unless I happen to be in the car by myself. If you say the term originated with Rush Limbaugh, I’ll take your word on it. Some blogger I happen to read used the term. Could be that Limbaugh got it from him. So a couple minutes wasted answering that.

The emotion I was looking for was disappointment. The level may vary depending upon the person. I do not know what emotion most posters here who oppose my views would admit to feeling.

@Grewgills: People also do not choose to not like broccoli. The first President Bush said that he didn’t like broccoli.

Was there some event, some series of events, or perhaps some association that caused this dislike? If there is, then it is possible that a person could be trained to like or dislike broccoli.

If you do not accept this reasoning, then you will say that a person cannot be trained into homosexuality, or trained away from homosexuality. Ok, I understand this, but unanswered question is how does a person acquire any like or dislike? How does a person acquire any behavior?

Just something to think about. I realize no minds will be changed here.

I do not know what emotion most posters here who oppose my views would admit to feeling.

Relief, actually, as the views that you and people like you have on this issue are rapidly being thrown into the dustbin of history…you are becoming a minority on this issue and it can’t happen fast enough…